This is Follow-up-to-"NeXT-$2K"-thread in view mode; [Up]
Date: Sun 03-Dec-1991 21:56:47 From: kruger@socrates.umd.edu (Jonathan Kruger) Subject: Follow-up to "NeXT <$2K" thread 1) NeXT wants to raise the lowest common denominator in desktop computing, and they are doing just that in offices and classrooms. 2) The machines they are currently selling are too expensive for most students and for many individuals who need a machine for home use. Why can't they raise the lowest common denominator for home computers too? All it takes is a cheaper processor, a slower hard drive, less RAM, smaller monitor, etc. to reduce the price enough to make it affordable. Then simply sell it to individuals for <$2K and set the price for businesses at $4500 (or simply don't sell it to businesses) so they don't screw themselves and damage NeXT's reputation by buying an underpowered machine. There's a rather large market for such a product. I'm so sick of seeing people buying Mac IIfx's or 486s at work because they want to be able to share files with their Mac SE or 286 at home.
Date: Sun 03-Dec-1991 23:43:11 From: ernest@pundit.cithep.caltech.edu (Ernest Prabhakar) Subject: Re: Follow-up to "NeXT <$2K" thread In article <1991Dec03.215647.25489@socrates.umd.edu> kruger@socrates.umd.edu (Jonathan Kruger) writes: > > Why can't they raise the lowest common denominator for home computers > too? All it takes is a cheaper processor, a slower hard drive, less > RAM, smaller monitor, etc. to reduce the price enough to make it > affordable. Then simply sell it to individuals for <$2K and set the > price for businesses at $4500 (or simply don't sell it to businesses) > so they don't screw themselves and damage NeXT's reputation by buying > an underpowered machine. Sigh, I think I'm starting to repeat myself. Then again, so is this thread. NeXTs current prices are $4,995 list and $2,995 discounted, which is zero profit margin and a barely usable machine (8M/105M). Now, how much do you think they would have to take off the machine to reduce the price by one-third? A hard-drive twice as slow? 4M ram? A 30% smaller screen? A 68030 without FP accelerator? No DSP? Maybe all the above. You also have to offset the added cost of another design and the overhead of diverse production... Next is not concerned about its attitude to business, but to developers. If a lot of people had machines with small screens and wimpy CPUs, developers would be persuaded (by public ire, if nothing else) to write for that, thus lowering the common denominator. That is what a "common denominator" means, after all. > > There's a rather large market for such a product. I'm so sick of > seeing people buying Mac IIfx's or 486s at work because they want > to be able to share files with their Mac SE or 286 at home. Yeah, I do sympathise with that, although I'm not sure that's the reason. If all they want is to share files, there's SoftPC and FloppyWorks. And if people were *really* interested in a better, cheap home machine, they would (IMHO) have bought Amigas. (What do you call a $2000 Next? An Amiga! :-) As it is, most people I know buy such machines to be compatible with every Tom, Dick, and Bill Gates. Or they buy a home machine to be compatible with their office, not vice versa. However, you are probably in luck in this sense. NextStep will be running, within a few months, on 486 machines (among others). 486 NextStep clones will eventually be cheap enough (and, I dare say, slow enough :-) to qaulify with your earlier demands. -Ernie P.
Date: Sun 04-Dec-1991 21:17:01 From: thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark Thomsen) Subject: Re: Follow-up to "NeXT <$2K" thread Jonathan Kruger writes > Why can't they raise the lowest common denominator for home computers > too? All it takes is a cheaper processor, a slower hard drive, less > RAM, smaller monitor, etc. to reduce the price enough to make it > affordable. The price of a reasonable NeXTstation (12MB RAM and 200 MB HD) should drop. I had a long conversation with the then-head of sales and marketing three years ago about getting to the real low price objective Steve Jobs set for NeXT. The strategy is to start with the best technology and some new technology. Build something special so that there is a reason for NeXT to exist (not yet another PC cloner). The new technology is an investment (e.g., NeXTstep) that you keep pushing. The new technology will come down in price as it becomes commodity. Initially expensive machines become cheaper. He said Steve is 100% committed to this approach and wants less pricey machines without becoming average technology (something special at an affordable price). I don't know if NeXT has changed that strategy since the complaints on the first machines were more on performance than price. I would hate to see them produce a PC-class turkey - a waste of precious engineering resources and a good way to demotivate a lot of people. I hope NeXT is poised to drop the price of the existing computers - they are still superb and at 33-50% lower price would be a price-performance leader, even ready to break into the home computer market. Mark R. Thomsen
Date: Sun 05-Dec-1991 00:58:51 From: kruger@socrates.umd.edu (Jonathan Kruger) Subject: Re: Follow-up to "NeXT <$2K" thread thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark Thomsen) writes: >The price of a reasonable NeXTstation (12MB RAM and 200 MB HD) should >drop. I had a long conversation with the then-head of sales and >marketing three years ago about getting to the real low price >objective Steve Jobs set for NeXT. The strategy is to start with the >best technology and some new technology. Build something special so >that there is a reason for NeXT to exist (not yet another PC cloner). I'll buy that.
Date: Sun 04-Dec-1991 17:23:19 From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) Subject: Re: Follow-up to "NeXT <$2K" thread In article <1991Dec03.215647.25489@socrates.umd.edu> kruger@socrates.umd.edu (Jonathan Kruger) writes: >1) NeXT wants to raise the lowest common denominator in desktop > computing, and they are doing just that in offices and classrooms. > >2) The machines they are currently selling are too expensive for most > students and for many individuals who need a machine for home use. > >Why can't they raise the lowest common denominator for home computers >too? All it takes is a cheaper processor, a slower hard drive, less >RAM, smaller monitor, etc. to reduce the price enough to make it It is cheaper to make an '040 system than an '030 w/FPU system. Slower harddrive? They had one called an optical and people didn't like it. Also UNIX needs fast harddrives for swapping. Less ram = more swapping. More swapping makeas a system slow. See above. >affordable. Then simply sell it to individuals for <$2K and set the >price for businesses at $4500 (or simply don't sell it to businesses) >so they don't screw themselves and damage NeXT's reputation by buying >an underpowered machine. I doubt people would be happy with a crippled NeXT. > >There's a rather large market for such a product. I'm so sick of >seeing people buying Mac IIfx's or 486s at work because they want >to be able to share files with their Mac SE or 286 at home. Not share files but use the same programs. > > >-- >Jonathan Kruger kruger@socrates.umd.edu > >"Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist. >Now be a good little bunny and let me have your brain."
Date: Sun 05-Dec-1991 19:59:01 From: nathan@jacobi.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette) Subject: Re: Follow-up to "NeXT <$2K" thread In article <1991Dec05.005851.20668@socrates.umd.edu> kruger@socrates.umd.edu (Jonathan Kruger) writes: > thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark Thomsen) writes: > > >The price of a reasonable NeXTstation (12MB RAM and 200 MB HD) should > >drop. I had a long conversation with the then-head of sales and > >marketing three years ago about getting to the real low price > >objective Steve Jobs set for NeXT. The strategy is to start with the > >best technology and some new technology. Build something special so > >that there is a reason for NeXT to exist (not yet another PC cloner). > > I'll buy that. > Me too, except change that "12MB" to the correct amount, 16MB. As we all know, there is no 12MB mono configuration, and shouldn't be a 12MB color one ;-) It would be a total win for NeXT to ship stations with 16MB (minimum) configurations. Customers would have better performance (16MB vs 8MB) and a lossless expansion capacity (4 free slots - no more "extra" 1MB SIMMs).
Date: Sun 06-Dec-1991 19:41:30 From: wisdom@schottky.geom.umn.edu (Scott Wisdom) Subject: Re: Follow-up to "NeXT <$2K" thread In article <1991Dec5.195901.11518@cs.yale.edu> nathan@jacobi.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette) writes: > Me too, except change that "12MB" to the correct amount, 16MB. As we all know, > there is no 12MB mono configuration. My mono system has 12MB. Do you mean there is no *offical* 12MB mono system available, or there is no 12MB mono system possible? Scott Wisdom wisdom@geom.umn.edu
Date: Sun 06-Dec-1991 20:54:45 From: nathan@jacobi.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette) Subject: Re: Follow-up to "NeXT <$2K" thread In article <1991Dec6.194130.28986@cs.umn.edu> wisdom@schottky.geom.umn.edu (Scott Wisdom) writes: > In article <1991Dec5.195901.11518@cs.yale.edu> nathan@jacobi.biology.yale.edu > (Nathan F. Janette) writes: > > Me too, except change that "12MB" to the correct amount, 16MB. As we all > know, > > there is no 12MB mono configuration. > My mono system has 12MB. Do you mean there is no *offical* 12MB mono system > available, or there is no 12MB mono system possible? The context of my comment was a mono NeXTstation. I realise that a cube can have a 12MB mono config, thanks. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
Date: Sun 06-Dec-1991 21:37:33 From: matthews@lewhoosh.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) Subject: Re: Follow-up to "NeXT <$2K" thread In article <1991Dec6.194130.28986@cs.umn.edu> wisdom@schottky.geom.umn.edu (Scott Wisdom) writes: 2MB mono configuration. >My mono system has 12MB. Do you mean there is no *offical* 12MB mono system >available, or there is no 12MB mono system possible? You have a Cube. Cubes have the hardware for it. Stations only have 8 slots, so you can have 0, 4, 8, 16, 20, or 32 megs of memory. The first three (ahem) configurations are unuseable. >Scott Wisdom >wisdom@geom.umn.edu Mike
Date: Sun 07-Dec-1991 02:19:42 From: jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) Subject: Re: Follow-up to "NeXT <$2K" thread In article <10529@umd5.umd.edu> matthews@lewhoosh.umd.edu writes: >In article <1991Dec6.194130.28986@cs.umn.edu> wisdom@schottky.geom.umn.edu >(Scott Wisdom) writes: >2MB mono configuration. >>My mono system has 12MB. Do you mean there is no *offical* 12MB mono system >>available, or there is no 12MB mono system possible? > >You have a Cube. Cubes have the hardware for it. Stations only have 8 slots, >so you can have 0, 4, 8, 16, 20 or 32 megs of memory. The first three (ahem) >configurations are unuseable. Not to mention silly (with respect to the 16Meg configuration) :-) First of all, there is no sensible reason for buying a 16Meg configuration direct from NeXT (unless you are one of those types who insists on buying direct from IBM as well :-) since the extra 8Meg cost you about $1000 extra or more, instead of the $500 or so that you can pay to get an additi9onal 16MEG in the third party memory market. Second, having acquired an 8M NeXT and the aforementioned 16Meg from one of the nefarious memory vendors (Western Scientific, Chip Merchant, et al) at the aforementioned "cheap" price, you could, I guess, take all 8 1Meg Simms out of your machine and replace them with the 4 new 4Meg Simms... Pretty dumb though, since you might as well leave 4M of 1Meg Simms in place and have a 20Meg machine which is at least 4M better than a 16Meg machine (which is to say it is a LOT better :-) Of course, you still end up with 4 1Meg Simms which you can: a) give to charity b) use as paperweights c) try to sell to some unsuspecting Mac user at $40 each (but you should feel lucky if you get $25 :-) Jon Rosen >
These are the contents of the former NiCE NeXT User Group NeXTSTEP/OpenStep software archive, currently hosted by Marcel Waldvogel and Netfuture.ch.